STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. SAILENDRA NATH SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 18th December, 1970, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Diamond Harbour, initiated proceedings under Section 44 (2A) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (the 'Act') for revising the finally published record of rights in respect of Khatians Nos., 10. 11 of Mouza Haradhanpore and Khatians Nos. 6, 7, 13, 15 and 24 of Mouza Kailpara within his jurisdiction. According to him, incorrect entries were made in favour of the respondent in the record of rights in respect of the said Khatians based on the purchases made by the respondent in auction sales of the Khatians in execution of the decrees for arrears of rent. Two different cases --- Case No. 156/70 and No. 22/70 -- were respectively initiated in regard to the two properties. In both these cases. in the record of rights, the, name of the respondent-auction purchaser was entered as raiyat on the basis of the said sales. These sales were effected on 6th November, 1954 and 3rd December, 1954 respectively. The sales were admittedly of the rights of the raiyats. and hence the Assistant Settlement Officer took proceedings for. revision of the record of rights taking the view that such rent execution sales effected after 1st June, 1954 would be invalid under S. 5B of the Act. By his orders dated 8th January. 1971 and 27th January, 1971 respectively passed in the two cases. he directed the correction of the record of rights by substituting the names of the original raiyats for the auction purchaser.

(2.) In order to appreciate the answer to the question raised before us, it is necessary to have a brief glance at the relevant provisions of the Act. As its preamble shows, the Act has been placed on the statute book to provide for the acquisition of estates, of the rights of intermediaries therein and also certain rights of raiyats and under-raiyats and of the rights of certain other persons in the lands comprised in the estates.

(3.) Hence there cannot be any dispute that no estate, tenure or under-tenure including raiyati and under-raiyati interests could be sold under the statutes mentioned in S. 5B including the Tenancy Act with which we are concerned, on and after 1st June, 1954 and a sale after that date under any of those statutes would be void and. have no effect under that Section. Admittedly, the present auction sales were held in execution of the decrees for the arrears of rent under the Tenancy Act and took place on 6th November and 3rd December, 1954 respectively. What came to be sold under the said sales were raiyati interests of the judgment debtors, and the respondents were entered in the record-of-rights as raiyats in place of the original raiyats on the basis of the said sales.